Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Single Sided and Fully Enclosed: The Inaccessibility of "Bike Culture"

As of today, we are officially eleven days into the Smug-A-Thon that is "National Bike Month." Like most cyclists, you're undoubtedly taking every opportunity to ride with "family, co-workers, and friends." You're also counting the days to "Bike to Work Week" (May 17-21st) as well as "Bike to Work Day" on May 21st. (If you're wondering why there's a Bike to Work Week and a Bike to Work Day, it's because there's a federal law stating that all "biking"-themed events include a shorter "woosie" option.) Also, if you're the more "involved" sort, you may be contemplating the legal and infrastructural issues facing cyclists and perhaps even flirting with the world of bike advocacy.

Sure, I can get behind the general sentiment, which is that cyclists need to be safe and smart. However, I simply cannot stand reading something like this:

Only someone who inhabits the most rarefied stratum of über-smugness would take to task a person who has been run over and killed by a city bus for not wearing a helmet. As the writer says, "As of this writing, no one knows for certain what caused the accident," and even if it was entirely the cyclist's fault the helmet or lack thereof had nothing to do with it. By the time the helmet comes into play someone is already at fault. Obviously you can't go wrong with an extra measure of protection, but the implication here is that if you're not wearing a piece of polystyrene on your head then you're to blame. Furthermore, does the writer think that not wearing a helmet and colliding with a bus is deadly, but doing so while wearing a helmet is like accidentally brushing shoulders with someone in a crowded Starbucks? I don't know what caused this accident either, but I do know that I see city buses running red lights all the time, and I'm glad to know that, should I find myself on the wrong end of one of these errant buses the first question on this guy's mind will be, "What was he wearing on his head?"

Then again, I guess I shouldn't expect anything different from our "You are what you wear" culture. If you wear a helmet, you're a "safe" person, and if you don't you're (as the writer puts it) "an arrogant rider." I guess in his universe the helmeted riders on brakeless track bikes I see running lights at major intersections day after day are responsible, yet the helmetless middle-aged woman riding her three-speed to the food co-op is an arrogant daredevil. It's also why urban American cycling looks like this:

“Biking is about taking matters into your own hands,” Green said. “People ask me how I can be a bike advocate if I don’t use bike lanes, and I say, ‘Once the city gives you bike lanes, you’re expected to stick to them — and that’s limiting.’ ”

To me, what's limiting is expecting the average person who is interested in using a bicycle for transportation but is not a "lifestyle cyclist" or particularly interested in being fast or aggressive to ride among 300hp motor vehicles at all times in the most populous city in America. If anything, the idea that city cycling is the domain of people who can throw elbows with Lincoln Navigators and Nissan Armadas strikes me as being rather elitist--though according to the article I'm apparently the elitist:

Green’s no elitist, taking a different approach than the so-called “Bike Snob,” who also has a book out right now (see main story). Rather, Green doesn’t want to waste time dividing the biking world up between “us” (the hardcore riders) and “them” (those people you see in Prospect Park with their kids on the tag-along).

“I hold biking in such a high regard that I don’t have time to make fun of it or the people who make up the culture,” he said. “We’re promoting the universality of biking in an accessible way.”

Again, with all due respect to Michael Green, I don't see what's universal or "accessible" about this style of riding. I mean, it's great that it works for him, but I suspect that if you put the average person on a brakeless bicycle (or really any bicycle) and sent them to work in a city without any bike lanes they'd abandon cycling faster than Mario Cipollini used to abandon the Tour de France. I also don't know how he can say he doesn't divide the "biking world" between "us" and "them," yet also says that "biking is about taking matters into your own hands." This is precisely why I do make fun of the "culture"--I'm extremely wary of anything that requires membership and special hats.

Alas, it can seem as though there is no place for those of us who just want to ride bikes and who feel alienated by the "bike culture"--which seems to take three commonly accepted forms. There's the American "urban" bike culture with its heavy emphasis on style and expensive equipment, and in which you're a warrior who wears a helmet but leaves the rest to chance:

There's the Copenhagen Cycle Chic version, which is only open to attractive women or people with fabulous wardrobes:

And then there's the David Byrne version, which is for famous urbanites who travel exclusively by bicycle (except when they're in airplanes flying all over the world) and who are free to explore cities on their bikes while the road crew unloads the tour bus:

I mean, all of this stuff is valid, but I don't see what's "accessible" about any of it. Clearly, we need some "Cannondale Innovation," and fortunately a reader has alerted me to the "onBike," which I guess is their idea of a city bike:

As you can see, this $6,499.00 bicycle "makes use of the Case Closed Technology, where the chain case is a single sided, fully enclosed, structural part of the bike frame." Unfortunately though, while taking great pains to protect the rider from chain grime, they've completely neglected the wheels, which are totally un-fendered and which will fling filth all over you at the slightest hint of rain. They've also wisely eliminated those pesky seat stays and half the fork, which any city rider knows are extremely inconvenient as they offer places to anchor a rack. For that kind of money, it would be nice if the bicycle were willing to do even a small part of the work.

Fortunately, not all Cannondales are ludicrously expensive. Here's one (forwarded by a reader) that's only $450, though it has been "rearly used:"

I guess this has greatly reduced its value, as well as its self-esteem.

Alternately, you could always buy yourself a "MILF Magnet," forwarded by another reader:

If you want to be the King of Classic Cool then this is the bike for you. Turn the heads of all the hot new moms pushing strollers as you cruise by in truly high style. This is one for the ages. Don't let it get away like that hot chick with the really good job you blew it with last fall.

For sale: Azor WorkCycles Kruisframe a.k.a Pastoorfiets. A true classic handmade in Holland. This bike is a pleasure to ride. Perfect for intown riding, its upright riding position puts the rider (who sits tall, without pressure on arms or neck) high enough to see over SUVs. Totally enclosed chain, gears, and brakes need virtually no maintenance while fenders, mudflaps, and rear wheel skirt keep clothes clean even on wet streets. Hub dynamo powered halogen headlamp and LED tail light provide extra safety when riding at night. Rear rack rated for 110 pounds with elastic straps. Double kickstand makes for easy loading. This is the real thing, not some cheap knockoff. Classic Dutch design combined with superior workmanship will last for decades to come. Turn heads everywhere you ride. More info can be found here: http://www.workcycles.com/home-products/handmade-city-bicycles/workcycles-kruisframe-aka-pastoorsfiets

This bike has less than 100 miles on it and has always been stored indoors. New retail price is $1800. Virtually impossible to find another one like it anywhere in the southeast.

Not too long ago, someone placed a similar Craigslist ad here in New York City. At the time, it was quite amusing; now, the fact that some bike company is serially spamming the Craigslists of America with MILF-themed bike ads simply seems depressing.

Of course, if you value simplicity over MILF magnetism, you can always go with a singlespeed--just keep in mind that, if you convert it to a fixed-gear, you won't be able to coast (via still another reader):

Early '80s Schwinn Traveler frame in very good condition. 4130 Double Butted Cromoly steel. Nice old Stronglight crank (english threading). All bearings refreshed. Single speed freewheel. I was going to make it fixed-gear but then I realized that would eliminate coasting. Coasting is one of the more pleasant things you can do on a bike, especially downhill.

The Traveler was middle of the line for schwinn. It is well made and uses the same grade steel as Surley. This bike has pretty basic componants but this frame is worth up-grading to a certain point, if you are into that kind of stuff. Otherwise, if you just want a basic cheap ride, it's fine for that too.

It will fit someone between 5' 2" and 5' 8" depending on various factors.

Wow, not many comments, and I read the entry! Actually, those Azors are pretty nice, especially downhill, as they weigh a ton (a metric ton, being Dutch and all). They also make 'em real tall which is nice for us tall buggers. The ride does tend to be, well, stately.

So what's the big advantage of having a one-sided fork? That just seems like a really inferior design to a two-bladed one.

Snob -- logic failure. You recoil from the elitist label and then point out the elitism of others. That doesn't fix the fact that you not only wag your finger at David Byrne (and, the rest), but the "dorks" who have no cultural ax to grind. Your self-anointed label, "Snob" fits -- live with it.

Snob, we are in intellectual lockstep on many issues, but on the great helmet debate, I have to come down on the other side.

No matter how carefully and conservatively you ride, chances are that you will be totally blameless in the incident that introduces your head to the pavement (or the curb, or the fender, etc.)

TBI (traumatic brain injury) is not one of those cutesy acronims we like to throw around on this forum; it is a serious and life-altering event.

If the chance of such injury can be reduced or avioded, there is simply no excuse of not availing yourself of the opportunity, even if you are just on a two-block convenience store run.

Regrettably, we are genetically programmed to trivialize risk on a personal level. I occasionally ride with the helmenless college kids on their fixies. They do not have jobs and wives and kids and mortgage companies who depend on them showing up for work every day.

For most of us, there is too much to lose from riding helmetless. If not for you, do it for those who care about you.

I second WIWM on the helmet post. Last year I rode down a particularly steep and winding path and I inexplicably went sideways sliding violently head first into a chainlink fence. Glad I had the helmet. Ten years ago I was hit by an angry motorist and dragged by a sideview mirror some distance, when I was able to unhook, my head slammed sideways on the pavement. Glad I had the helmet; although it now occurs to me that I might just have an excuse for why I am the way I am, traumatically-induced-asshole. BL

As one who has cracked a helmet, I'm all for 'em. However, it is hard to resist attacking the illogic of the opinion that failure to wear one excuses drivers from running cyclists down like "Wiley Coyote" - to quote the insipid Tony Kornheiser.

"I occasionally ride with the helmenless college kids on their fixies. They do not have jobs and wives and kids and mortgage companies who depend on them showing up for work every day."

While I agree with your conclusion, this is the sort of elitism that will turn people off to your point. You are not more important than those college kids despite your family and mortgage and therefore deserving of wearing a helmet more than them. I used to ride without a helmet myself, before I got hit by a car (which left me uninjured).

A helmet might help you in the case of the rare, but inevitable collision. It's a safety net, and you (should) have the choice using it or not.

Byrne is to bike culture what Dennis Miller was to Monday Night Football.

Oh, and BTW, when you make the podium or top 10, just move on to reading the piece, then come back and bask in your well desrved glory. Oh, and picking an actual name is cool too. Don't kill me, I'm only the messenger.

There was a study done a few years ago that found that people actually drove more cautiously around cyclists who weren't wearing a helmet. There was a perception that they were vulnerable, thus they needed to more careful, whereas they viewed cyclists with helmets as kind of road warrior menaces, who could take care of themselves.

I generally do wear a helmet, but I usually don't when commuting. Then again when commuting I have the luxury of riding on separated bike paths the whole way and don't have to worry about cars, only roller bladers and slack jawed gawkers.

My niece works with TBI patients in the area of vocational therapy. After listening to her descriptions of their post-accident capabilities, I wear my helmet every time I get on the bike, I use my seatbelt everytime I get in a car, and I've checked all my stiletto's for non-slip soles. Why tempt fate?

Maybe I am misreading this but I have never thought of Snob as being anti-helmet. I interpret the post as him saying that the helmet, while a great and useful tool, is not a force field that will protect you if your head also happens to be up your ass. Being responsible in your riding and bike choice just as much as helmet use, can save your life. And, wearing a helmet doesn't excuse you from making wise choices. But, what do I know, both times I was hit by cars, I wasn't wearing a helmet.

I think SNOB will shy away from mentioning helmets again. He's inadvertently started the never-ending argument. BTW, just as i was getting comfortable in my chair to read the post, my wife called me screaming that i left my helmet at home today, and that i'm no superman so i better ride more carefully home today... or else... So, wishiwasmerckx, i do it for those who care about me... because i have no choice... the general has ordered me.

Maybe we should start wearing a helmet to walk down the street? you could fall down or get hit by a car or bus, or a branch could fall on your head? when you think about it, it really is arrogant to walk down the street without a helmet. in fact we should just all wear a full suit of body armor everytime we leave the house in case some fucking clueless asshole decides to mow us down.

The cause of the injury and the seriousness of the injury, while related, are 2 different issues. As often happens in this debate, the douche bostonian (redundant) has succeeded by taking the focus off of drivers acting like jackasses, the cause of 99.99% of accidents.

not that it'll ever settle anything, but does anyone have knowledge of TBI rates in the peloton pre and post helmet rule? i know they ride on closed roads, and are pretty good bike handlers (fschleck excluded, of course :) ), but it would be interesting to see.

I ride daily along Huntington Ave (where the fatal collision occurred in Boston last month) and often the 39 buses (and others) will pass from behind far too close for comfort; one problem is that Huntington Ave does not have a proper bike lane... ANOTHER problem is a lot of the MBTA drivers do not seem to regard bike lanes when they are there; I (as many others have in other cities, as well) have been passed by a bus just to have it nearly right-hook me to pull into the bike-lane to pick-up/discharge passengers -- the best is when they are stuck in traffic and just open the doors as you are riding by!

I hate to say it but based on what I see from my bike seat the %99.99 of accidents being caused by jackass motorists can't be right, at least not here in NYC. Seems every time I stop at a red light I see a lot more people rolling through the intersection than stopping with me. Then there's at least %50 of the riders I see in my daily commute that don't understand how an intersection with multiple turn signals works... Yes, you have been waiting 2 minutes, now you are supposed to wait another 2 minutes to let people make a left turn. That's what the little arrows mean that the drivers see. The red light you see on your side means continue to wait. I know, that's like double the waiting time... and yet some people get to move! oh the horror! Traffic lights are not a form of oppression. They're there to help, really.

And don't forget the pedestrians! The way some people walk they probably should be wearing at least a helmet, if not the full suit of armor. Headphones in, looking at their phone instead of where they're going... then jaywalking... walking out into the middle of the intersection out of turn...

"I don't need THE MAN telling me when I can use the street. It's my life and I can risk it and your life and anyone else's life if I want to. This is America dammit!"

If you add all that up, I'd have to say that's at got potential to be at least 25%. You can't put all the blame on the drivers, although every time some idiot puts his or her turn signal on AS THEY TURN it makes me want to chase them down and smack them with a driving manual.

Respomok, I can see how you would interpret that part of my post as eletist, but that is not what I intended at all. I could have expounded to clarify the point, but you can only write so much in a post before you lose your audience.

The point was that we are poor at realistically assessing personal risk, and the younger we are, the more bulletproof we are convinced that we are.

This is the same reason that drunk hipsters stumble home from the bar with a skank, them engage in unprotected sex. AIDS? Herpes? Not me!

is it bad that i was bummed that the Cannondale CG ad was down when i checked? i wanted to nurse its sense of self-worth back. can't stand to think of it sitting in the corner, rocking back and forth with its arms around its knees.

Not to be outdone the left coast has Bike to Work Day on this Thursday:http://www.sfbike.org/?btwdI will be taking twice as long as usual to get to work in order to prove a point to someone, somewhere, I hope. The cycling will take 10 minutes and the ferry ride 20. HTH.

Hah! I just looked at the Globe piece and have to say the woman makes some valid points, though seemingly ignoring the fact that drivers bear responsibility also. She even admits to riding the wrong way on a street!! but at least calls it 'stupid'. So why did she then?

The fun part is the comments. As I thought, there's some of them that are VERY anti-cyclist; I'm talking Kornheiser-ism here. BUT, you can just click the 'abuse' link and report them.

Snob, Great post. I know you're wary of the over-earnest tone at Streetsblog, but there is a pretty thoughtful comment on the 'bike culture' question. Since I'm too stupid to figure out how to link text the way most people do, I'm just gonna have to paste:

"...I say this as a driver, drivers will be less inclined to be angry at you if they think you actually care about safety." I would like to add that as a female who has been run off the road on two separate occasions in the period of two days by men in SUVs, I do not believe they cared that I was wearing a helmet.

There's no question that, in the event you are involved in an accident or collision, you're less likely to be injured or killed if you're wearing a helmet. What's less certain is the proposition that wearing a helmet makes it less likely that you'll be injured or killed in an accident or collision. See Rivara, Thompsons versus Adams/Hillman for a discussion of this. The debate turns on the question of whether risk compensation, our tendency to behave more riskily the more likely we think it is that we will survive a miscalculation, consumes the benefits of helmets.

I rode the coast road around The Isle of Arran on Saturday, highly recommended if you're in Britain with a weekend to fill.

this line is interesting: "Cycle helmet laws have led to a decrease in cycling; after it becamecompulsory to wear helmets in Australia, the level of cycling fell by about twice as much as didthe number of cyclists admitted to hospital for the treatment of head injury (Robinson 1996)."

anon 4:06 - for it to be not true either the likelihood of getting injured or killed has to be the same, or higher. i've heard, and experienced, plenty of examples where a helmet helped, plenty where it didn't matter since the head wasn't involved, but i've never heard of one where the helmet increased injuries (except for the old, now illegal, styrofoam only lids). assuming your comment was referring to the current foam/plastic bike helmets, can you tell me of a case where the helmet made things worse?

also i'd love it if helmets made me safer. if anyone has definitive evidence, pls let me know

i had always assumed they did, until I looked into it, and now I'm completely skeptical.

i'm not syaing either is right, but for an different opinion on Cochrane Review/Thompson, see:

www.cycle-helmets.com/curnow.pdf

"7. Conclusions

(a) The critical efficacy of helmets is against fatal and disabling injury to the brain.

(b) The review’s conclusion that its five included studies establishscientific evidence that standard bicycle helmets of all types protect against injury to the brain is not supportablebecause none of the studies possesses the requisitescientific rigour.

(c) Due to the decline in use of hard-shell helmets, past findingsof their efficacy are not applicable to most helmetsnow used.

(d) The review is not a reliable guide to interventions and isnot suitable for the Cochrane library."

As for as the great helmet debate, I'll admit that I didn't wear one until I realized that I needed one. Which is probably a sign of something, but I'm not sure what.

Helmets are not a force shield of guaranteed protection, and neither are separated bike trails. In the crash where I received a documented head injury, I was wearing a helmet. And I was hit by another cyclist on a separated bike path. All things that shouldn't have happened but did.

I still wear a helmet, though, because my damaged brain is still something worth protecting. (Yes, my mouth is completely disconnected from it.) It works great against the crap that gets thrown (literally) at me.

As long as we're flogging that horse, the important thing about the helmet debate is that helmet promotion is part of an effort to paint cycling as a dangerous, marginal activity. ant1 was referring to Australien helmet laws and the decrease in cycling that followed... the simple argument is that the freedom to use a helmet or not encourages ridership; I look damn good riding around in street clothes without a helmet on my Danish bike. This provides all riders with safety in numbers, which outweighs the passive safety of helmet use.So if you wear a helmet, you're basically a free-rider living off the benefits of the absence of helmet laws. Enjoy it! And please shut up, I'm riding helmetless for your safety.[/weakattemptathumour]

anon 4:30 - "you have never had an experience where the helmet definitively helped you." not to nitpick too much, but i disagree with that. i would agree with something along the lines of "you can't be 100% sure that the helmet helped you." i would agree with that, since to be sure you'd have to have the exact same thing crash without a helmet. let me describe one of my experiences: flying down a rocky trail on my rigid mtb trying to keep up with downhill guys, front wheel washes out, i fall to the side and mostly hit my head, hard. my knee has a nice gash in it, my arm and leg are all scraped up, my elbow is bloody, my sunglasses go flying off and break, but my head is fine. now, i'm not saying this is empirical proof, but would you argue that the helmet had no impact on the impact? there is proof out there that helmets dissipate forces. based on the speed i was going and the damage sustained to other body parts, and the fact that my head fell from a higher level than the rest of my body, i find it hard to believe that the helmet did not help. for one, the scratches on it would have been on my head had i not been wearing it. i'm not saying a helmet always helps, but i'm pretty sure it sometimes does, and haven't been presented with examples where it worsened the accident.

by the way, if you feel strongly about wearing your styrofoam hat while biking to prevent serious brain injury, then you are absolutely *INSANE* if you do not wear a full crash helmet while driving a car. seriously.

that is a significantly more dangerous activity wrt brain damage where all evidence onclusively points to crash helmets being extremely beneficial in reducing/limiting serious trauma.

About 12-ish years ago, I was t-boned by a car near the Manhattan end of the Midtown tunnel. I was wearing a helmet (a Specialized foam one with thin plastic shell, for the record).

Now, whether or not my head was struck by any part of the car and/or slammed into the ground very hard, I cannot say with 100% certainty since I don't remember the accident, as often happens with head trauma.

I do remember waking up in the emergency room of Bellevue hospital at what I learned later, was about 4 hours after the accident. Now, since I was unconcious for 4 hours, I think we can assume that my helmeted head did in fact hit something very hard and the helmet itself was indeed laterally cracked.

You would like us here to believe that if I didn't have the helmet on, I wouldn't have been any the worse for wear. Well, I have to admit in that situation, that's not a chance I'd be willing to take. How about you?

I'm sure that you know that most folks when they hear your opinion on this matter, think you're a loon. Either that, or you're a brain surgeon, speech therapist or funeral director trying to drum up business, in which case I say bravo! Well played!

The city may claim not to know the cause of the Boston accident, but as someone who saw it happen, a helmet would NOT have helped. Dude got hit bike tire stuck in the train tracks (which run right in the road), bus came flying around the corner and annihilated him as he tried to get loose. He really wasn't doing anything reckless.

Aaagh! First I get sucked into a couple of God-awful car/bike flame wars, then into the helmet debate! Not the best day to be reading this blog. I'd be better off with Huffington post bloviators. Now really, people ...

"by the way, if you feel strongly about wearing your styrofoam hat while biking to prevent serious brain injury, then you are absolutely *INSANE* if you do not wear a full crash helmet while driving a car. seriously."^this^ totally

anon 4:47 - my bike doesn't have a roll cage or airbags, the odds of me falling from about six feet high and landing on my head while driving are about zero, and i rarely encounter branches at head level while driving. not saying driving a car isn't dangerous, or that the rates of head injuries are lower than for cycling.

for full disclosure, i ride helmetless quite frequently. but i don't do so because i think it's safer, or that helmets do nothing. also, a helmet is a great place to attach a headlight.

mikeweb, it is f-cking awesome that you're alive and able to tell the tale, and i hope the helmet helped.

agreed - most people would say im a loon. that just shows how illogical most of us are - nothing more, nor less. the same people who drive helmetless ... at a rate of 30-40,000 deaths per year in the US alone!

how many could be saved with crash helmets?

im not trying to convince anyone not to wear a helmet. im trying to convince everyone to think more critically.

if you feel that seriously about preventing risk to your noggin, i would seriously consider you wear a crash helmet while driving. just because no one does that (and almost everyone wears one biking) does not make it a wise decision.

Everyone here needs to read John Forrester's book "Effective Cycling"...including YOU Snobbie. Borrow it from your public library. Bike lanes encourage the inept and incompetent to ride.(Witness 'The Bike Salmon') There is also a whole host of other reasons why they are generally a bad idea- the worst being the legislated 'There is a bike lane/path, therefore you can't ride on the roadway' scenario.

Helmets, on the other hand, are a good idea. A co-worker, who commuted daily on a 1972 ladies CCM bike, refused to wear a helmet. "I don't go fast enough" she said. She was T-boned by a another cyclist running a red light, whacked her head on the pavement, and was off work for two months. When she finally came back, she had difficulty concentrating, vertigo, and spells of blurred vision. A $50 piece of polystyrene would have prevented this. The commenter who said sarcastically, "We should just wrap ourselves in armour" is an ass. It's called risk management, and travelling any faster than walking speed is inherently more risky for your cranium, full stop.

To all the idiots (BSNYC included, apparently) who value their freedom not to wear a helmet (or criticize other posters for urging everyone to wear helmets), and insist it's a purely "personal" issue -- please immediately drop your health insurance. Also, when you crash and get a disabling traumatic brain injury, please make sure to go to a private hospital. Unless you are uninsured and pay the resulting millions in medical bills from your own pocket, you're costing all the rest of us money with your "personal" choice.

And BSNYC, this post is a rare misfire from you -- an otherwise very public-spirited pseudo-snob.

Wading in to the morass that is the never-ending helmet debate: what will make riding safer is more people riding. Reduce the barriers to entry and more people will ride. Don't hate on the helmetless. Don't hate on the helmeted. Just get on your frikkin' bike and ride.

Hey Anon 5:41, your argument that me not wearing a helmet is somehow costing you money is a stretch to say the least. so I should not be insured for any cycling related illnesses or accidents because I opt to go helmetless? Interesting, what planet are you from my friend? also, just because you disagree with them, it's not nice to call people idiots. douchebag

this site is full of bike helmet stats. the most interesting, in my opinion, is the chart showing bikes deaths broken down between helmeted and helmetless riders. between '94 and '06, 92% of deaths were helmetless, 6% helmeted, and the other two percent represent the no data crowd. another stat, from 02, says that 50% of cycling wear helmets some trip, 35% of which wear them almost always.

No BJ with the helmet? Seems like you need to get the kind Fred wears.

Oh, also about my trip to the Bellevue ER: Oddly, no damage what so ever to the bike frame, a Cannondale road 3.0 I kept riding afterward until it was stolen. I had another Cannondale road 3.0 stolen after that one too. Snob, I like to think that my 2 and your messenger one that was stolen are all sitting side by side somewhere in some secret warehouse.

When I spoke to the driver's insurance company, they told me they didn't believe him when he said he hit a cyclist since there was so much damage to the car.

My very good friend and riding buddy was clipped by a cement trailer 3 years ago. They told her husband she was dead. After a coma, rehab, multiple brain surgeries, and 3 months with a piece of her skull in the freezer at the hospital, she survived and rode with me today. Without her helmet, her brain would have been for all to see on a telephone pole. Her helmet saved her life. The life of a mother of two little girls.

To argue whether wearing helmet is ironic, cool, necessary, unnecessary, encourage bad driving, encourages good driving, encourages bad driving, or even causes Staten Island women to want to ravage you is pointless. You put it on your head, you clip the strap, and you go.Snobby, you argue frequently that you don't understand "bike culture". That the best way to make the world safer for cyclists is to encourage more people to ride, then more people are aware of bikes on the road. Well, by that same logic, if we all wore helmets...

Saw a bus Kornheiser a guy (intentionally swipe him) and send him sprawling into the street IN TRAFFIC. Guy was pissed, so quickly got back on bike and sped up to the bus, gesturing angrily at driver (and I can only imagine saying some very angry words).

I see a few people justifying helmetless riding by virtue of a separate bike path... that's the only place that has sent me to the hospital on a bike. Full kit riders going too fast around blind corners, dodging the ever irksome rollerblader, children's trail-a-bikes. I'll take my chances on the road with cars thank you very much.

With a helmet or without. I flip a coin sometimes. Hows that for chance safety? Just kidding.

I certainly don't insist that everyone ride a bike with a helmet. I do continue to insist that everyone on a bike (on the road) ride like a responsible adult. The unfortunate truth seems to be that there are more people riding with helmets (a lower percentage than I'd like) than are riding like responsible adults. Something like snobby's point, I think, without the entertainment value...

Also, as for the Cochrane review, absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.

I was just riding there on Huntington the other day after some lilac-sniffing. I did not like the potholes in the Mass.Ave underpass much. Good think I took the lane anticipating them. Two years ago a pothole broke my collarbone - and my helmet.

Anon. 4:53"He really wasn't doing anything reckless."

Well... riding close to parallel tracks in the road (or almost parallel crack or rise) approaches recklessness.If he didn't recognize that hazard, it was just inexperience.

That was my single speed Schwinn traveler in the ad there. I just sold it. it was the first single speed conversion I have every done. I was just trying to get rid of old bikes and parts in my basement and thought the local young folk would be attracted to a nice looking, inexpensive single speed bike. And I guess I was right.

What I would like to say is, bikes are fun to work on. There are all kinds of beautiful parts and frames and such out there and you can really express yourself mechanically for not too much money, without too mcuh expertise... or it can just be transportation.

But I also really dislike bike sub-culture (or any sub-culture) aspect becasue it's all about social signalling/group identification/personality bolstering. All that sociological/psychological stuff frosts a layer of boring and annoying (unless you are a social scientist) on top of something pretty simple: a fun and elegant transportation device.

To argue that drivers should be free to "disrespect" cyclists who are helmetless is akin to arguing that we need not summon an ambulance if an injured automobile passenger was clearly not wearing a seatbelt (in direct violation of the law in most American states).

Earn their respect, Jesus get over yourselves... the only respect out there cyclists have to worry about is respect for the violence and mayhem people cause with their cars. How about motorists start respecting the traffic laws and paying respect to the attention required to operate 2tons of steel and plastic in a public space responsibly. Then maybe we'll cut them some slack and give them some more respect... because that way they'll have earned it.

I would also add that bicycling culture #2 is something I could really get behind. Bicycling culture #1 makes me want to get out the delousing powder.

Craigslist/adult services. Probably oughta put a helmet on that soldier if you rent one though...

anon@4:30: "you have never had an experience where the helmet definitively helped you."

I have. At least if the ER physician who reassembled me is to be believed. Multiple fractures, contusions, & abrasions. Helmet (styrofoam-without-a-shell; this was 20 years ago) crushed, cracked, and one aspect was ground halfway through. Wrist surgically rebuilt (later). No head injury, save a mild abrasion on my cheek. There is a sizeable gap in my memory however - one moment I was Just Riding Along, and the next moment I was in a hospital room being told that the helmet saved my life. So STFU, already - your argumentum ad infinitum/ad absurdum is wasted on me.

It's really simple physics at work here.

Much more recently, a friend crashed his motorcyle at bicycle speeds, impacted his head, and died. His helmet was attached to the helmet lock - must have been worried about messing up his hair.

I'm anti-mandatory helmet laws, but won't leave home (on a bike) without one. If you don't want to wear one, then don't. But don't get bothered when I view your attempts to talk people out of it as malignant and cancerous.

From the pro-helmet people we get self righteousness, insults, anecdote (I sometimes wonder if everyone on the Internet either is, or knows someone who is, "only alive because of the helmet") but no actual numbers. Where are the stats that support your position, helmeteers?

("He'd be dead today without that lid - that's the only stat I need." *puffs chest, hits send*)

Please everyone I urge you to go to the YouTube address that I have copied below. I can see that the risk of collisions with vehicles and surroundings is being considered in the ongoing debate about helmets but I am very concerned that you are not discussing the most terrible hazard that we face - DEATH FROM ABOVE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wHreVKgOT4

I used to think that swooping birds were only an issue in Australia with our beloved/cursed Magpies (perhaps the real reason for our mandatory helmet laws), but I fear that Mr Snob's close encounter with one of his local hawks hints at the possibility of a hitherto unrecognised pandemic of needless injury and death being dealt by the talons of multiple bird species all around the world. I suspect that the pigeon snatched from the air in front of Mr Snob may have inadvertently saved his life by blundering into the hawks final approach on its mission to extract the wittily tasty brain matter from Mr Snob's skull for the hungry chicks waiting in the nest.

In the video you will see the helmet/no helmet issue examined specifically in relation to swooping bird hazards with some interesting counterintuitive conclusions. The video also provides a sneak peek at some possible hipster fashion trends of the near future which may be as useless at managing swooping birds as current hipster fashions are at managing the more recognised challenges of cycling, such as stopping.

Be concerned, be very concerned, or nonplussed, but whatever you do don't be caught riding without your brains.

ce

(Note that my initials also double as the European Union consumer safety conformity mark, so you can trust what I say when it comes to helmets)

As I understand it, you're advocating practical, sturdy bikes that won't throw you flying off if you meet potholes? So helmeted riders on road bikes with narrow tires are juste the same as NOBR AKES fixies with helmets, right-o.

I used to wear a helmet until I did some research. Turns out they don't actually work and don't prevent serious head injuries. All you people that think that they do are enjoying a false sense of security.

What is the difference between hermes handbag and ordinary bags? Why would it be necessary for women to spend a lot of money on replica Hermes handbags when there are actually other bags that can be found anywhere? There are various reasons and seasons why women have to own discount Hermes handbags .We should be going for daidaihua which provide maximum benefit to our body. lida slimming is very easy and effective way for people who wish to loose weight within a short span of time. slimming capsule also help us to attain a control over our body. By using it we are able to control our hunger. slimming capsules also helps the body to cut down the intake of fat in the body and provide us with surplus energy in order to lida other activities of our day. There are also various other supplements which can be taken in order to control our weight. By such ways we can lose weight without doing much effort. In such cases we can use the fat burners to remove the unwanted fat from one part of the body. One of such effective one is lida daidaihua .Emerging in Chanel Wallet collection Paris Moscow Fall 2009, this Large Soft Lambskin Tote Bag as its fall couture, is comparatively toned-down and does not manage to outstrip the genius of previous spring Chanel handbags collection. That is the annoying thing when you are competing against yourself. Objectively speaking, Chanel handbag is indelible if ignoring glamorous Spring chanel watches collection.If you haven't seen the life-sized uk Tiffany snowflake hanging above the designer shops on Fifth Avenue in New York City, silver necklaces is truly something magical to do during the holiday season. Well now silver pendants had the ingenious idea to create a mini-version of the Fifth Ave. snowflake in the form of sterling silver and Tiffany accessories and a sterling silver snowflake charm bracelet.

What is the difference between hermes handbag and ordinary bags? Why would it be necessary for women to spend a lot of money on replica Hermes handbags when there are actually other bags that can be found anywhere? There are various reasons and seasons why women have to own discount Hermes handbags .We should be going for daidaihua which provide maximum benefit to our body. lida slimming is very easy and effective way for people who wish to loose weight within a short span of time. slimming capsule also help us to attain a control over our body. By using it we are able to control our hunger. slimming capsules also helps the body to cut down the intake of fat in the body and provide us with surplus energy in order to lida other activities of our day. There are also various other supplements which can be taken in order to control our weight. By such ways we can lose weight without doing much effort. In such cases we can use the fat burners to remove the unwanted fat from one part of the body. One of such effective one is lida daidaihua .Emerging in Chanel Wallet collection Paris Moscow Fall 2009, this Large Soft Lambskin Tote Bag as its fall couture, is comparatively toned-down and does not manage to outstrip the genius of previous spring Chanel handbags collection. That is the annoying thing when you are competing against yourself. Objectively speaking, Chanel handbag is indelible if ignoring glamorous Spring chanel watches collection.If you haven't seen the life-sized uk Tiffany snowflake hanging above the designer shops on Fifth Avenue in New York City, silver necklaces is truly something magical to do during the holiday season. Well now silver pendants had the ingenious idea to create a mini-version of the Fifth Ave. snowflake in the form of sterling silver and Tiffany accessories and a sterling silver snowflake charm bracelet.

Sponsored Linkway:

About Me

While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!